' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA (CHAIRMAN).---This appeal filed by Iftikhar Ahmad Bhatti seeks to call in question an order, dated 4-3-1999 passed by the then Chairman, N.I.R.C. Whereby he dismissed two petitions filed by the appellant viz. Case No,7(111) of 1998 and 4-A(429) of 1998.
2. Facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant filed a petition under section 22-A(9) read with section 8(7) of industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, (7(111)/98) in this Commission stating therein that he was a founder member and Deputy Secretary General-1 of Pakistan Telecommunication Co. Lions Staff Union and that the office of Secretary-General of the Union fell vacant on the demise of its incumbent Syed Tauqir Ahmed and according to Article 9 ( ) of the constitution of the Union, the appellant was entitled to perform duties of Secretary-General but respondent No,1 (Haji Khan Bhatti) who was the President of the Union nominated Sheikh Muhammad Shafique, respondent No,3 herein, as Secretary-General. It was contended in the petition that according to rule 13(b) of the Constitution, mid-terms vacancy was required to be filled through elections and the President was not competent to appoint anybody as Secretary- General. It was further averred in the petition that the appellant came to know through daily 'Jang'
Rawalpindi, dated 25-8-1998 that he had also been removed from the membership of the Union on 31-7-1998 which action he also challenged in the aforementioned petition on the ground that the impugned action of removing him from the membership was violative of the constitution of the Union. Prayer was accordingly made in the petition that the Notification, dated 31-7-1998 (removing the appellant from membership) as well as appointment of Sheikh Muhammad Shafique, respondent No,3 as Secretary-General be set aside and respondent No,1 be directed to allow the appellant to function as Secretary-General of the Union till the mid-term elections for that office were held. This petition was resisted by the respondents on the ground, inter alia, that the appellant was Chairman of another Union namely Pakistan T&T All Staff Union and in that capacity was enjoying the facility of telephone at his residence and he was, therefore, rightly expelled from the Union.
3. During the pendency of the above petition, the appellant filed another petition under section 22- B(3)(b) read with section 8(7) of I.R.O., (4-A(429)/98) praying that the respondents therein namely the President of the Union and three members of the Election Committee (respondents Nos.4 to 6 herein) be restrained from holding elections of the Union and that the Circular, dated 28-10-1998 be set aside and the petitioner be allowed to function as Secretary General of the Union till the holding of the elections. This petition, too, was contested by the respondents mainly on the ground that a similar petition filed by the appellant was already pending and in any case, the appellant had no locus standi to file this petition.
4. The then learned Chairman after hearing the arguments of both sides and perusing the file of the Registration Branch of this Commission observed that the proceedings with regard to the election of the office-bearers of the Union were approved vide letter, dated 11-1-1997 and that the tenure of office-bearers could not exceed two years as contemplated by section 7(1)(j) of I.R.O., 1969 and as such the tenure of the office-bearers stood expired on 10-1-1999. It was further held by the learned Chairman that the petition filed by the appellant was also premature as he could approach the Executive Body/General Body of the Union for restoration of his membership which he did not do. It was also observed that the holding of the elections was the prerogative of the General Body which right could not be denied to it. With these findings/observations, the learned Chairman dismissed the petition vide order, dated 4-3-1999, impugned in the present appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also Mr. Haji Khan Bhatti, respondent No,1 who appeared for himself and also represented other respondents. It has been admitted by both the parties that the elections of the office-bearers of Lions Staff Union were held on 4-3-1996 which elections were approved by the Registrar Industrywise Trade Unions on 11-1-1997. That being so, no exception can be taken to the findings of the learned Chairman that the tenure of the office- bearers of the Union who were elected in 1996 and whose elections were approved on 11-1-1997, stood expired on 10-1-1999. It is in fact, so provided in section 7(1)(j) of I.R.O. Which lays -down that the constitution of the Union must provide for the election of office-bearers by the General Body of the trade union "and the term not exceeding two years, for which an officer may hold office upon his election or re-election". In the circumstances, two years' term/tenure of the appellant having admittedly come to an end on 10-1-1999, he was not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed by him in his petitions which were rightly dismissed by the then learned Chairman. The impugned order, in our view, has proceeded on correct premises, legal as also factual and it does not call for any interference.
6. Confronted with the afore-noted, legal and factual position, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that having held that the tenure of the previous office-bearers of the Union including that of the appellant stood expired on 10-1-1999, the learned Chairman ought to have directed the reelection of the office-bearers of the union and the same should have been ordered to be held under the supervision of this Commission. Such a course could well have been adopted and we find from para. 7 of the impugned order that such a request was made on behalf of the appellant but the fact that the direction sought by the appellant was not given in the impugned order, would not render it illegal or invalid. Haji Khan Bhatti, respondent No,1, on the other hand, has contended that after the expiry of the two years' tenure, he had already held the fresh elections of the office- bearers of the Union on 18/19-2-1999 and submitted the result thereof/change of office-bearers to the Registrar, Industrywise Trade Unions for approval on 6-3-1999 which approval has not so far been granted on account of status quo order passed in this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has disputed this contention and submitted that no such elections were held and in any case, the alleged elections were not held competently and in accordance with law/constitution of the Union. Since the matter of approval of the change of office-bearers (as a result of the elections alleged to have been held by respondent No,1) is pending before Registrar, Industrywise Trade Unions which is the competent forum, the appellant, if so advised, may raise whatever objection he wants to raise against the elections in question before the RITU.
' In view of what has been said above, we find no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed with the observations aforementioned.